But for Nadal, continuing to climb that basalt pinnacle to the top to join or surpass Roger Federer means you have to keep winning those titles that mean more than any other.  Despite being on tour for many years now, Nadal is a newly minted 25-year-old player who is sitting pretty in the middle of the best years of a tennis player's career (ages 22-27).

At this point, Nadal has won six titles at Roland Garros, two titles at Wimbledon and one apiece at the U.S. Open and Australian Open respectively.  At some point, the number of Slam titles you have won is what really matters, regardless of how they are split up.  

Bjorn Bjorg won 11 titles for his career before abruptly retiring at 26 years old, but "only" managed to win six titles at Roland Garros and five at Wimbledon.  He rarely played Australian and was thwarted in the finals of the U.S. Open on multiple occasions.  He never won the career Slam, and today that is not held against him because what he did in his time was amazing.

But let's face it.  No matter how many slam titles you win on other surfaces, no surface or title means more to your legacy than Wimbledon.  Winning this title makes even one slam wonders far greater than the rest of their resume might indicate.  Adding multiple Wimbledon titles to an already impressive resume is like putting the cherry on the top of an amazing sundae.  In Nadal's case, that would be a couple of cherries.

Another Wimbledon title would give Nadal three titles at the All England Club, further cementing his legacy as one of Centre Court's all-time great champions.  Furthermore, negative talk about Nadal's legacy being built only on clay (that surface some fans like to rail against) would have to grudgingly begin to dissipate.  

Add in at least another title each at the U.S. Open and Australian Open, and I'm not sure any fan could say much on the subject, regardless of how many titles Nadal ultimately wins at Roland Garros.

Another reason a third Wimbledon title would further Nadal's legacy is, fans.  Whether you're a die-hard tennis fan, a casual fan or some newbie who barely knows the rules, if there is one match you're probably going to watch all year, it's the final of Wimbledon.  

Roger Federer has won Slams on other surfaces, but his legacy is built more on Wimbledon's green stuff than on any other surface, even hard courts which account for nine of his titles.  Nadal may never tie or surpass Federer in Slam titles won on this surface, but with each Wimbledon title he does manage to win, his versatility and overall greatness become topics that cannot be disputed by even the biggest Nadal hater.

Nadal winning Wimbledon again this year would also give him a third "Channel Slam," termed for a player winning both Roland Garros and Wimbledon in the same year when both are separated by only a few weeks.  Bjorn Borg won the "Channel Slam" three consecutive times from 1978-1980, a feat that is as remarkable as anything in tennis history.  

Since then, Nadal has done it twice (2008, 2010) and Roger Federer has achieved it once (2009).  Despite it being done three years in a row now, it's also the first to be done since Borg.

Defending Wimbledon is also a feat that I am sure Nadal would like to accomplish at least once in his career.  I doubt he will defend it year after year like Federer has done in years past, but I think winning Wimbledon as a defending champion will prove to Nadal that he truly deserves to be considered one of the greats of both the game itself and Wimbledon.  

Defending champion of Roland Garros is one thing, but Wimbledon is quite another feat entirely.

Whether Nadal wins just one more Wimbledon, or ends up adding two or three more titles to his already glittering collection remains to be seen, but hey—who wouldn't want to add more cherries to the top of their sundae? 

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Throughout the years since the open era began in 1969, we have been witnesses and privy to some of the greatest matches ever witnessed on a tennis court.

The Grand Slams bring out the best in players.  They are playing for the tiles that will define their career.  These titles can often mean being remembered throughout history and being that guy people struggle to remember that was good, but lost often in the biggest moments.

These high stakes mean that there are often thrilling matches full of great shots, high drama, and history and legacies at stake as players fight, claw and leave everything on the line to win one of the four biggest honors in all of tennis.

I've spent a couple of weeks watching videos, doing research and compiling these results.  To be fair, there are plenty of matches that should be on this list but are not.  I had to make some hard decisions.

There are only three matches on this list that are pre-quarterfinal matches.

My criteria was a combination of the players who played, sets played, what was at stake and the circumstances involved with each match.  I then ranked them based on what I thought was the best order.

So, without further ado, here is my list of the 20 greatest grand slam matches of all-time . . .

Begin Slideshow

For Rafael Nadal it wasn't the same as a year ago.  Then, he raced through the draw, losing a mere 13 games en route to the finals where he eviscerated compatriot Fernando Verdascoe with ease while losing only one game.

That win and tournament was easier, this one was more satisfying, and in certain respects, better than last year. 

While Nadal's form certainly wasn't as amazing as some say it was a year ago, he also faced a substantially better group of players who actually managed to push Nadal hard at times which will only serve to harden him for the rest of the clay season.

It also gives Nadal something to strive for.  If last year was the high point in his clay season form, he played the rest of the season striving to live up to it, while now he will be attempting to better what he's done so far. 

Not bad after losing one set to Andy Murray in that excellent semifinal match.

So, with a 6-4, 7-5 hard-fought victory over fountain-of-youth-drinking David Ferrer, Nadal completes the first leg of the clay season.  While some may say players are making inroads against Nadal on clay, I wonder if the decent uppercut given was the best he might receive this year?

Anyone who follows tennis knows that Monte Carlo is where Nadal starts his mid-season demolition that begins there and ends with Wimbledon. 

Monte Carlo is about finding where he is form-wise and going on to maintain the high level needed to win his two favorite tournaments; Roland Garros and Rafa's hallowed Wimbledon title.

To some, however, Nadal's true form and direction for the season won't be known until he faces red hot Serbian, Novak Djokovic.  It's true that Nadal's biggest test may come, but not facing Novak until Madrid gives him a chance to gain the necessary momentum needed to make it through that test and possibly end or significantly slow down Djokovic's own forward progress.

It won't be easy, and this may not be considered Nadal's best clay court campaign even if he wins every tournament through Roland Garros, but it might just be his most satisfying.

Regardless, at the moment Nadal has managed to win a seventh straight title at an event as old as almost any tournament around.  With each successive year, Nadal etches himself deeper into the bedrock and courts that make up Monte Carlo's grounds. 

I wonder if one day, a court might be named after Nadal in honor of his achievements.  Maybe this place is the one for him, for who could possibly match what he's done and may continue to do in the next three to five years here.

So let's give Rafael Nadal his due, as always, on his surface. 

Great he may be on any other surface, but on clay it goes without saying that in the history of the game, and maybe in the history to come, no player may ever match up to Rafael Nadal, the King of Clay.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Most people are wrong. Not about the symptoms or their debilitating effect, but about the length of time that most bouts with the virus last.

While there are certainly extreme cases of Mono causing lasting effects for many months or even years, these cases are extremely rare. Nearly all cases are mild, and all effects are gone in the matter of a few months.

For the record, once contracted the virus incubates four to seven weeks before symptoms appear. Symptoms such as fatigue, sore throat, fever, etc. last two to four weeks, although fatigue can last roughly two to three months from the onset of symptoms.

While vigorous activity should be abated during and shortly after the acute symptom stages, it can be resumed once okayed by a doctor.

So why am I giving this lesson on the so-called "kissing virus?"

Because once and for all I would like to put to bed a common myth that many fans of Roger Federer have been using to justify an abnormally unsuccessful 2008 campaign in which he lost to Rafael Nadal in both Roland Garros (a lopsided affair) and Wimbledon (a razor-sharp one).

I don't doubt for a moment that Federer had mono. You won't hear me argue that it probably contributed to his demise at the Australian Open that year. I might even go as far as to agree that the last vestiges of the fatigue may have also hurt him during the spring hard court season, but that would be as far as I am willing to budge.

Also, in between the end of the spring hard court season and the clay season is about three to four weeks in which players like Nadal and Federer rarely play. This added recovery time basically ensures that by the time he stepped onto the courts at Monte Carlo, Federer was physically fine.

Roland Garros seems to be a big indicator to a great many people that Roger was still reeling from the effects of mono. That he was basically eviscerated is somehow proof that it's true. 

But is it?

I have several much more reasonable assertions as to why he lost in such a drastic way that day. How about this one for you: he simply had a bad day at the office. 

Whether you ever shot around with a basketball and nothing felt right? Regardless of whatever you do it seems like no shot wants to go in. You try and try and eventually call it a day because it just isn't clicking that day.

My guess is that Roger simply did not come close to bringing his A-game that day and he paid dearly for it. Many of his shots early in the match were going out by merely an inch, just consistently enough to end the match quickly.

I think there is another reason too. This was Roger's third consecutive final against Nadal and he wanted badly to win and complete his career slam, so he hired José Higueras to help him find a way to defeat Nadal, but I think it backfired.

Roger looked unsettled throughout the match. He appeared unable to truly decide how to attack or even really play that day. He had played great throughout the tournament, but that day against Nadal, it looked as though his own tactics mixed with Higueras's were conflicting so much that it may have kept him from fully committing to much of anything. 

It's these reasons and not some lingering fatigue from an illness that by all accounts should have been out of his system for a couple of months by that point.

Wimbledon should have been a big indicator that everything was just fine considering the high level of play, and yet still it's mono that cost him the title and not Nadal's level of play.

There are reasons why we should know that Roger was perfectly fine come the clay season. One is that he himself said he was perfectly fine.

Another reason is his performances leading up the Roland Garros. He faced Nadal twice at Hamburg and Monte Carlo. Both were tight matches, with Hamburg being a 7-6, 7-6 loss. 

A person with mono, especially against Nadal on clay could not play to that level; in fact, it could be argued that to play tennis at all, your mono cannot be that severe.

The hot conditions, long rallies and high level of play say to me that Roger was Roger as we know it, he just was playing against a Nadal at a ridiculous level.

I don't have any real hardcore proof. I don't have doctor's reports, nor anything else that can say definitively that Roger didn't have mono at that time of the year, but neither does anyone else. At least my reasoning is more sound, and though it's based on medical time tables, performances, etc., at least it's based on something.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Most people are wrong. Not about the symptoms or their debilitating effect, but about the length of time that most bouts with the virus last.

While there are certainly extreme cases of Mono causing lasting effects for many months or even years, these cases are extremely rare. Nearly all cases are mild, and all effects are gone in the matter of a few months.

For the record, once contracted the virus incubates four to seven weeks before symptoms appear. Symptoms such as fatigue, sore throat, fever, etc. last two to four weeks, although fatigue can last roughly two to three months from the onset of symptoms.

While vigorous activity should be abated during and shortly after the acute symptom stages, it can be resumed once okayed by a doctor.

So why am I giving this lesson on the so-called "kissing virus?"

Because once and for all I would like to put to bed a common myth that many fans of Roger Federer have been using to justify an abnormally unsuccessful 2008 campaign in which he lost to Rafael Nadal in both Roland Garros (a lopsided affair) and Wimbledon (a razor-sharp one).

I don't doubt for a moment that Federer had mono. You won't hear me argue that it probably contributed to his demise at the Australian Open that year. I might even go as far as to agree that the last vestiges of the fatigue may have also hurt him during the spring hard court season, but that would be as far as I am willing to budge.

Also, in between the end of the spring hard court season and the clay season is about three to four weeks in which players like Nadal and Federer rarely play. This added recovery time basically ensures that by the time he stepped onto the courts at Monte Carlo, Federer was physically fine.

Roland Garros seems to be a big indicator to a great many people that Roger was still reeling from the effects of mono. That he was basically eviscerated is somehow proof that it's true. 

But is it?

I have several much more reasonable assertions as to why he lost in such a drastic way that day. How about this one for you: he simply had a bad day at the office. 

Whether you ever shot around with a basketball and nothing felt right? Regardless of whatever you do it seems like no shot wants to go in. You try and try and eventually call it a day because it just isn't clicking that day.

My guess is that Roger simply did not come close to bringing his A-game that day and he paid dearly for it. Many of his shots early in the match were going out by merely an inch, just consistently enough to end the match quickly.

I think there is another reason too. This was Roger's third consecutive final against Nadal and he wanted badly to win and complete his career slam, so he hired José Higueras to help him find a way to defeat Nadal, but I think it backfired.

Roger looked unsettled throughout the match. He appeared unable to truly decide how to attack or even really play that day. He had played great throughout the tournament, but that day against Nadal, it looked as though his own tactics mixed with Higueras's were conflicting so much that it may have kept him from fully committing to much of anything. 

It's these reasons and not some lingering fatigue from an illness that by all accounts should have been out of his system for a couple of months by that point.

Wimbledon should have been a big indicator that everything was just fine considering the high level of play, and yet still it's mono that cost him the title and not Nadal's level of play.

There are reasons why we should know that Roger was perfectly fine come the clay season. One is that he himself said he was perfectly fine.

Another reason is his performances leading up the Roland Garros. He faced Nadal twice at Hamburg and Monte Carlo. Both were tight matches, with Hamburg being a 7-6, 7-6 loss. 

A person with mono, especially against Nadal on clay could not play to that level; in fact, it could be argued that to play tennis at all, your mono cannot be that severe.

The hot conditions, long rallies and high level of play say to me that Roger was Roger as we know it, he just was playing against a Nadal at a ridiculous level.

I don't have any real hardcore proof. I don't have doctor's reports, nor anything else that can say definitively that Roger didn't have mono at that time of the year, but neither does anyone else. At least my reasoning is more sound, and though it's based on medical time tables, performances, etc., at least it's based on something.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Sadly the result was the same.  A straight sets loss, and not even tight sets where it was obvious that only a few shots made the difference.  Instead it was a pedestrian 6-2, 6-4, 6-3 loss and it wasn't even close.

His results in slam finals have been so lackluster, that he's never even managed to win a single set in three slam finals, and the question of whether or not he will ever raise a grand slam trophy is starting to look more believable with every slam that sails by him.

But what is it that is keeping Murray from winning one of Tennis's ultimate titles?  There are a few factors at work, but they all stem from one thing.  I'll tell you what it is; it's pure negativity.

Tennis history is littered with players who were naturally negative people.  From Nastase to McEnroe to Agassi, these players were great, but often their negative attitude kept them from reaching even higher echelons than they managed to reach.  At the best of times they managed to harness that negativity and channel it in the right direction, but at a moment's notice it could all go wrong and suddenly game over.

Some of the factors caused by this negative attitude include the absence of any real sense of belief that he's got what it takes and possibly even deserves to win a slam title.

Part of me believes that Murray doesn't have the confidence in himself and his game needed to make the final leap.  He often reverts to pure defense when things get tight and when he's on the big stage. He freezes up and it shows that at the moment he's simply not mentally and emotionally ready to fully commit himself to the idea that he's got what it takes to win the most important titles.

Some will say that he's won half a dozen Master's Series 1,000 titles and has beaten the likes of Federer and Nadal during or in the finals of some of those tournaments and it's true, but there happens to be a huge difference between the final of a slam and a Master's Series final.

Losing the final of a Master's Series 1,000 is tough I'm sure, but the stakes at that level don't compare to a slam, and that lack of belief and conviction to step up and really fight makes me wonder just how much he wants it, and how much he feels he deserves it.

There are times like these when I also wonder just how much passion Murray has for the game. Certainly losses like these can sap that slowly away and negative people can fall into a state where they begin to loathe what they started out loving.

I've seen what Murray can do when he's hitting his stride and it can be scary good, but his highs while wonderful are often followed by long deep lows.  There is often a lack of consistency in his performances.  Two good weeks followed by a mediocre month, and back up again.  If Murray plans on giving himself a great and memorable career, he had better start looking in the mirror.

In short, Murray needs to show grit, spirit and the fight that are hallmarks of players like Federer, Nadal and even Hewitt.  That ability to brush aside bad moments, games and even tournaments is not easily done and is hard to learn, but if he wants the greatest highs, he had better start attending class.

It all starts with being positive.  It will take time and cannot be done over night, but with the right state of mind, and work he can become a much more positive person and that will do wonders for him.  It might even lead him to a slam title.

I'll plainly admit I'm not the biggest Murray fan in the world.  His whiny attitude can show up at a moment's notice and it was on full display in this past week's final.  Yelling at his box, ball boys, himself, etc.  It's grating, melodramatic and unprofessional and it's a sign that Murray has quite a bit of maturing to do.

Murray turns 24 this year.  While he certainly has plenty of years left, if he's not successful in the next couple of years, I'm not sure he ever will be. 

There was a time a few years ago when I said that David Nalbandian was the greatest player to never win a slam but Murray has pulled right up beside him and could pass by very soon if he's not careful. That is one distinction that Murray should never want to be known for.  Let's see if he can change things.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

The span of a tennis player's career is dependent on many factors, but barring any career-ending injuries, the ages between 22 and 27 is considered to be their prime.  It's the window in which they have the best chance to mark their career for greatness and win the titles that mean the most; that means the slams.

It's the point in their career when everything comes together.  Their fitness, mental fortitude, work ethic and overall game on the court is at its absolute zenith.  In short it's the time in which they are most capable of succeeding at the game's highest level.

Rafael Nadal is no different.  The one difference is that he's been winning slam titles since a few days after he turned 19.  That head start, plus the continual maturation of his game and the fact that he is currently sitting in the middle of the best years of his career at 24, means that this year is by far the most important of his career.

Some might think that last year was, but they are wrong.  Last year was important because it allowed him to get back to the player he was a year earlier, when he was unquestionably at the top of his game.  Together with Federer's dipping form, Nadal mercilessly destroyed everyone in his path and became a better player in the process.  He also completed the career grand slam, but it still isn't the most important year in his career.

Here are 10 reasons why this year is so important.

Begin Slideshow

For the longest time it was Federer who stood atop of the rankings.  Week after week, year after year, Federer kept his hold firm.  He collected trophies at an unreal pace and defeated nearly everyone he faced, except Rafael Nadal.

While Federer had certainly defeated Nadal during the first several years of their rivalry, it was Nadal who often stood in the middle of the court with arms raised in celebration as Federer gathered his bags after a great match.

Despite those great victories, it was Nadal who continued to chase Federer for the number one ranking, grand slams, and most of all true legitimacy as an equal. It took time to do two of those career markers and the third is still a chase in progress.

To forever be linked, remembered, and associated with Federer is fine, but to be defined as a tough but overall bit player in Federer's legacy; that was the longest and hardest path to navigate.  It took work, and tested both Nadal's resolve, and his overall desire to reach the level he is currently at and beyond.  He fought through injury, and family problems and a clearly evolving game to get where his is now.  Through it all, he has reached the level equal with Federer.

But is that all he has achieved?

Certainly Nadal will always use Federer as a measuring stick until the day, if ever, he surpasses him, but after claiming the final piece to his career grand slam by winning the U.S. Open, what is there left to do beyond endlessly chasing Federer's current mark of 16 grand slams?

It may be a surprising answer to some, but could the answer possibly be that the best thing Nadal could ever do is to simply continue carving out his own unique legacy within the game rather than chasing one number?  While the grand slam record certainly is the biggest and brightest achievement within the game(like the MLB home run record) it is certainly not the only measure of an amazing career.

Like in most sports, there are times when I think we place so much importance on a single achievement, that the other things we have worked so hard to accomplish are a pale shade next to that awesome behemoth that is that major record beloved to the sport.

There are achievements like records on a particular surface.  For Nadal that is clay.  His records on that surface are amazing.  For his career he is 203-16(92.7%) and even better is his record since 2005 with a mark of 175-6(96.7%).   Those are the kind of marks that stand the test of time, and the tender age of just 24, we might see these numbers nearly doubled before Nadal's career is done.

Then there is the career slam and the career golden slam.  In the history of tennis, only 7 players have accomplished this amazing feat with only Andre Agassi, Federer, and Nadal having done so since the start of the open era.  To have a game complete enough to win on all surfaces is something that many of the greatest players(Sampras, Bjorg, Lendl, etc.) were never able to do.

The golden slam is quite simply the addition of a gold medal at the Olympics.  Since the Olympics did not make tennis a sport to be competed in for many many years until 1988, this achievement though grand is not quite as hallowed as others but is something many players including Federer are keen to achieve.

Then there are the Master's 1,000 series titles.  They have gone by many different names over the years, but winning them is no small feat.  For many years the title holder was Agassi.  By the end of his career he had won 17.  An amazing number, but at just 24 Nadal surpassed this past year by winning his 18 title.  It's safe to say that Nadal will most likely add to this number over the next few years, to probably put it in a number possibly beyond reach.

There are many other achievements, some small and some bigger but they all add up to an illustrious career that has little to do with the career grand slam record.

Some will still insist that the career slam record is the only thing that matters, but those people like so many others simply fail to understand that what makes a great career is the product of so many small moments, so many momentous achievements, and so much hard work beyond grand slams.

Nadal may one day pass Roger Federer, or he may not, but in so many ways Nadal has done the impossible.  He was once thought of as a kid who would steal the show on clay but little else.  Nary a single soul thought he could win Wimbledon but he did, and even fewer thought he could do so as well on hard courts and he proved them wrong.

Such is the story of Nadal's career; proving people wrong, and sprinting by low expectations placed on his by people who decide on his abilities and future without seeing his heart, his determination, and desire to do so much and create for himself an enduring legacy.

People continue to doubt Nadal and that is fine.  Nadal will continue to meet these doubts with the same determination that has been the hallmark of a fine career indeed.

May Rafa's 2011 season bear the same fruit(or better) that 2010 did.  Long live the king.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

Tennis, like any of these sports is no different.  It has it's share of hallowed records too.  Of course there is Roger Federer's record 16 Grand Slam record, but there are others.

One of it's most hallowed records is Rod Laver's calendar Grand Slam in 1969.  To win all four major slam tournaments in a single year is something players have been trying to duplicate for the last four decades, but without any success.  Some have come close.  Federer has nearly done it twice by winning the Australian Open, Wimbledon and U.S. Open, but lost in the finals of Roland Garros to Rafael Nadal.

The most recent attempt was by Rafael Nadal who became the first man to win three consecutive slams in a calendar year since Laver's magical season.  Nadal won Roland Garros, Wimbledon and the U.S. Open, but failed to win the Australian Open. What he did though was win on three different surfaces which is something that is becoming increasingly difficult.

But what does Laver's Grand Slam mean today? What does it mean when there have been drastic changes to court surfaces over the years?  Back in 1969, three of the four surfaces were played on grass which heavily favored a serve and volley player of Laver's caliber. 

These days there are three distinct surfaces.  The clay of Roland Garros, the grass of Wimbledon, and the hard courts of both the Australian Open and the U.S. Open.  Even the two hard court surfaces are different enough that they each have their own uniqueness.  They are not different surfaces entirely, but enough so that it's obvious one is slower than the other.

Besides the differences in court surfaces, there are an array of other factors that tie into a question like this.

While the effort, mental fortitude and pressure required to win all four slam titles in a calendar year is substantial these days, back in 1969 it was much different.

In Laver's day, the media pressure was just a fraction of what it is today.  These days players give hundreds of interviews instead of dozens in a given year. They endure appearances for sponsors and appear in dozens of ads and commercials.  The scrutiny today is like a giant spotlight in the dark.

Maybe the most significant difference of all is the importance placed on the slam titles then as opposed to now.

In many ways, the slams mean everything now.  Though Masters series titles hold significance, it's generally acknowledged that a player's career is defined by how many slam titles they hold at the end of their career, but it was not always that way.

The slams were always very important, but the heavy significance that is placed on them today was similar to the media coverage; a fraction of what it is today.

Players played in many more events at the time which is how a player could manage to win well over 100 titles in a career.  Because of the serve  and volley style of play, players would often play well into their 30s at a very high level of play.

However one of the biggest, if not the biggest problem is the aura surrounding any hallowed record from almost any sport including tennis.

Records that stand for decades end up being praised by generation after generation leave little room for objectivity after a certain period of time. They are so universally praised and stand as such a glowing achievement within a sport that few want to say anything against it for fear of diminishing what it means in a historical context.

I'm not here to make Laver's achievements during the magical season in 1969 appear easy or over-hyped, but duplicating his achievements in this day and age is something else entirely.

If a player were to do it now, it would stand as a much greater achievement compared to Laver's and for good reason.  Winning against what is a greater pool of international talent than in Laver's day, and on such a variety of surfaces, and playing styles means that such an achievement would be monumental to say the least.

If someone were to do the impossible and win the calendar slam they would easily eclipse Laver's achievements, but how does Nadal and to some extent Federer's best year(s) compare to Laver's season?

I personally say they are nearly equal on par with Laver's season.  They kind of set the new standard for what you can strike for in a season, at least until someone actually achieves the calendar slam.  Who knows?  Maybe some day we will all bear witness to such an amazing event.

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com

The level of Monfils' athleticism is so high that watching one of his matches almost guarantees a few hours of high-level entertainment, but that doesn't always mean the result is a win.

When Monfils was a junior player, he was a monster on the court.  In 2004 as a teen, he won three junior slam titles (Australian, French, Wimbledon) and seemed poised to make the leap to being one of the next great players who could potentially dominate the tour.

Sadly, that has never happened.

Part of Monfils' problem undoubtedly is due to his injury woes over the years.  More than probably any other player, Monfils has been afflicted with nearly every minor injury that most tennis players might deal with over the course of a long career.

Some of this might be bad luck, but it's my theory that it is bad body management, including over-training on the court or weight room, which are the real culprits.

Monfils' biggest problems are a trio that together are almost more of a problem than his injuries.

The first is his over-reliance on his athleticism.  Monfils does now what Nadal used to do, which is going after absolutely every single point, rather than picking his spots.

The second and worst of Monfils' problems is his knack for showmanship.  

There are often times when his desire to produce breathtaking shots overrides his common sense. This was never in greater evidence than his match against Novak Djokovic in their US Open quarterfinal match.

Early in the first set with Monfils up a break and serving at 2-1, 40-0, a rally was ensuing between both players.  After a penetrating shot by Djokovic, Monfils sent it back but Djokovic, who had come to net, hit a short ball with little pace directly back.

Now any player would have wound up a forehand and ripped it past Djokovic.  It was an easy shot, but instead of doing the normal and boring shot, Monfils decided to spice it up by leaping into the air and attempting to hit the shot between his legs.  Suffice it to say, it was a disaster.

Now, I understand that we again bore witness this year to a Federer between the legs shot, and Monfils was up a break and well ahead in the set, but it's points, and easy points like that which separate the winners from the losers. 

Roger Federer and Nadal would never have attempted something like that unless they had to like Federer's shot early in the tournament. It's why they are slam winners and Monfils is still a work in progress.

Lastly, Monfils will often space out on the court for long stretches of time.  He either seems apathetic, or just lacks confidence to work within his game. Regardless, it's something he will have to push through if he's going to get to the next level.

Every two to three years there are whispers about the next great prospect coming through the ranks. It's inevitable that not all of these so-called soon-to-be-greats will all amount to what those around them say they can and will become, but Monfils has always been one of those players who have as much talent and ability to win as he does the penchant for thrilling theatre on the court.

At 24, Monfils doesn't have long before the chances to fulfill his amazing talent evaporate. He has all of the tools necessary to win—a great forehand, solid backhand, great speed, and wonderful defense.  If he could just find a way to use all of that and develop the killer instinct necessary to truly excel, we may yet see the fruition of all the hard work those around him have sacrificed on his behalf.

Look, I understand that maybe the expectations are simply too high for some of these players to handle, but these goals are often echoed by the players themselves, including Monfils.

The time however is now to make a move.  Either fade away or up the ante.  When your greatest career matches are a win over Rafael Nadal in a small lead-up tournament to the Australian Open and a five-set thriller at Roland Garros to Roger Federer, then you might want to start ticking off your goals a little quicker because while those are nice memories, they are not good enough.  

Maybe Richard Gasquet can tell Monfils what he's doing wrong.

Maybe one day he will put in that extra hard work too and become a champion.  Do I think it will happen now?  No, but then again anything can happen.

So what do you think?  Monfils just turned 24 a couple of weeks ago.  Are his chances dwindling?  Will he ever put it all together and do something special?

On a side note, I was going to write an article about Rafael Nadal but I decided to put that on the back burner for a few days because of the large amount that have been written over the last week or so.  I will get that out early next week.

I'll keep on writing and you keep on reading.  Cheers!

Read more Tennis news on BleacherReport.com